44 F. 614 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern New York | 1890
This is an action for infringement of letters patent No. 314,884, dated March 31,1885, granted to Isaac D. Smead for new and useful improvements in dry closets. The defenses are that the claims of the patent are destitute of patentable novelty, and that the invention was in public use more than two years prior to the application for the patent. The dry closet of the patent is one in which air is used to desiccate fecal deposits, render them innocuous, and remove the foul odors from the building. The treatment of such deposits in buildings where a large number of persons use the closets is a problem which architects and sanitary engineers have attempted to solve in various waj^s. Water-closets, with their sewer connections, involve the well-known danger of the generation of disease germs, as well as the expense and annoyance commonly incident to plumbing. Earth closets smother the foul odors, and do not thoroughly dry the deposits,' and the absorbing material so soon becomes charged with the odors that the closets become offensive if they are not frequently and carefully cleansed; and it would seem manifest that they could not be practically employed for the use of several hundred persons in a single building. The dry closet in which the deposits are desiccated by an air current constantly forced into contact with them is especially adapted for use in buildings where the general system of heating and of ventilation can be utilized to furnish the air current, and convey it out of the building. The present invention is more especially designed for use in such buildings. The invention described in the specification, and shown in the drawings, consists of a system of foul-air ducts, a gathering room, a deposit vault, and a vent
“From the foregoing description, it will be seen that the gist of my invention consists in so arranging the closets, in relation to the exhaust ducts and ventilating shaft or shafts, as to cause the foul air which is drawn from the rooms to pass through the vault which receives the fecal deposits and desiccate the same, and at the same time take up and carry off all foul odors. As the air leaves the rooms at a temperature of about 65 degrees, it will readily be seen that it is in a condition to rapidly absorb moisture and produce a drying effect upon any matter with which it may be brought in contact. By thi's method the fecal matter is quickly desiccated and greatly reduced in volume, so that its removal is easily and quickly accomplished. If desired, a small amount of plaster, dry earth, or other absorbent material, may be from time to time thrown into the vault; but, in practice, I have not found this necessary or advisable, because of the rapidity with which the deposits in the vault were dried up by the passage through it of such a large volume of warm air. By this method I am enabled to avoid all the serious difficulties or objections which have heretofore existed in reference to closets, especially when located within buildings, the closets themselves being as free from offensive odors as are the ordinary rooms of the building.”
The claims of the patent are as follows:
*616 “(1) The combination and arrangement of one or more ducts for the removal of the foul air from a room or rooms of a building, a vault for receiving and retaining the fecal deposits, connected with said duct or ducts, and a ventilating or exit shaft connected with said vault, whereby the warm air from within the building is made to desiccate or dry the deposit in the vault and remove all odors therefrom to the outer air, as set forth. (2) The combination in a building of a series of foul-air duets, B, a gathering room, C, a vault, D, and a ventilating or exit shaft, E, with means, substantially such as described, for creating a draught through the same, substantially as and for the purposes set forth. (3) A dry closet arranged in relation to the ducts which convey the air from the room or rooms in a building, and the ventilating or exit shaft, substantially as shown and described, whereby the foul and warm air from the room or rooms is made to pass through said dry closet, and thence out through the ventilating shaft, as and for the purposes set forth.”
The patentee was not the originator of the method of treating fecal deposits by an air current to desiccate them and remove their odor, nor the first to utilize for that purpose the air drawn for ventilation from the various rooms of the building; nor was he the first to do this by using a system of air ducts like those described in his patent, leading into a gathering room, and a vent shaft like that described in his patent for creating the requisite draughts. The credit for all this belongs, according to the present record, to Henry Ruttan, of Canada, who published in 1862 a book upon the ventilation and warming of buildings, which is si very valuable contribution to the literature of that subject. Every- ■ thing in the specification of the present patent, which is essential to. the broad invention stated in the first claim, is described in Mr. Ruttan’s book. But, instead of a vault like that described in the patent, Ruttan’s closet had a basin located within and at the bottom of the gathering chamber, a single basin to which all the deposits from the various closets in' the building were to be conducted. It was placed in front of an opening into the vent shaft, and consequently was in the line of the air current entering the vent shaft. It was in no sense a tube or air duct between the gathering chamber and the vent shaft. The gathering chamber opened directly into the vent shaft. Obviously, in such a closet the air current can only reach the top of the deposits in the basin; it may create a crust over the deposits, but will not dry the mass. Suck a closet might do the work of removing the odors, but it could not do the work of desiccation. No one can doubt that it would be of very little practical utility in a building in which it would be used by any large number of persons. Those who were familiar with it, among them the Ruttan Heating & Ventilating Company, engaged in manufacturing Rut-tan’s heating and ventilating apparatus, and whose interest it was to introduce his closet, attempted to do so to a limited extent in family residences, but never recommended it for large institutions or public buildings, and finally abandoned closet work altogether. The change made by Smead in the organization of the Ruttan closet by inserting a vault in the form of a tube between the gathering chamber and the exit vent adapted the vault to receive deposits distributed along its surface in com-' paratively small quantities at any given place, and to act as a duct for a
The prior patent to W. S. Ross, cited for the defendants, is of no importance as an anticipatory reference to either claim of the patent, or as tending to suggest the absence of patentable novelty in the second or third claim. The Rosspatentis for a furnace for baking or burning fecal deposits by heat. The vault is located between the fire pot and the smoke flue, and has within it a transverse shelf or partition for the reception of the deposits. When the furnace is in operation, the products of combustion pass over and beneath this shelf, and thus bum or bake the deposits. The defense of prior use based upon the dry closets of Mr. Clark, Mr. Yeomans, and the Mount Carroll closet, cannot prevail. These closets are illustrations, more or less crude, of the Ruttan closet, with unimportant modifications. It is doubtful whether, from a sanitary point of view, any of them were an improvement upon the oldrfashionéd privy.
The second suit between the parties is brought upon two later patents granted to Mr. Smead (Nos. 352,157 and 363,971) for minor improvements upon the dry closet of the patent which has been considered. The questions of the validity and the infringement of these patents have been but little discussed by counsel, and may be briefly disposed of. The earlier of these two patents,' so far as it relates to the claims now in contraversy, is for a modification of the principal patent and covers improvements by which air is let into the vault from the exterior of the building, and by which a fan is employed in the vent shaft to create a draught. It could not involve invention to devise either one or both of these modifications. Invention cannot be reasonably asserted of making a hole in the wall of the building to let air into a vault, or of using the well-known fan to create a draught of air. As to the later of these two patents, undoubtedly the transverse partition located in the vault, which is the subject of the first claim, is serviceable, and adds somewhat to the efficiency of the closet. When constructed, as that claim implies, of absorbent material, the improvement seems to be new and patentable. But in view of the Ross patent, the second claim is without patentable novelty. Upon filing a disclaimer as to the second claim of patent No. 363,971, the complainants will have a decree upon the first claim, without costs.